Cat can stove

I have used a cat can stove quite a bit and have found them easy and light. I have since moved to a Zelph Starlyte with a sidewinder cone windscreen. The Starlyte weight is not much different than a cat can. The Starlyte/cone combo is much more stable. The Starlyte/cone combo is a lot more efficient, so you can carry less fuel. The upside of a cat can is price. Other than price, I like my current system better. But a cat can works fine.

Because the SuperCat will stick to the bottom of your pot and will release when you lift up and it may still have fuel in it. Might have been the cause of western wildfires…dunno!

Liquid fuel while heating the water, will jump up and get deposited on the bottom of your pot and cause the stove to "seal/attach" itself to the pot slightly. It doesn't happen always, just when you least expect it. The stove will still be on fire so when it releases a large amount of flame can happen while the stove is falling.

When using this style of stove let the stove go out before lifting. Use a specific amount of fuel enough to bring it to a boil and then go out a min. later to conserve fuel.

My cat food stove always seened to take more fuel that it really should. Starlyte stove is fifteen bucks and works great.

After someone pointed me to the CHS design for alcohol stoves, I realized an alcohol stove could basically be perfect. I use pot stands, it's just easier to light, more stable, etc. The cat can, aka fancy feast, aka, jim wood design, is simple, but it's not a very efficient design, and not as easy to get started as others, which are equally fast. CHS is as fast as fancy feast, lights/blooms within seconds, can be refilled while burning, etc, and is almost as efficient as the ION design from sgt rock, that bpl store sold for a while, which is a lot slower. I would point people to the starlyte too because the chs is relatively hard to make and turns out best if you have good tools.

With worsening california/west coast fire danger, I really wish people would just stop using fancy feast type stoves, the lack of a base means very hot against the ground as it burns to the end of the fuel, ie, flames are basically right next to the bottom, the issues Dan mentions means more prone to spillage, and thus fires, and the fact a fancy feast can be made anywhere for a few cents means many will use it because it's easy to make, which will create stove bans in high fire danger areas. Then they'll note the issues and assume alcohol isn't that great, when what they are finding is that fancy feast stoves aren't that great.

To his credit, jim wood, who created the fancy feast design, never claimed it was that great, it was just a simple thing to make that caught on. And it's downright bad on narrow pots, unlike things like the starlight or CHS, which do really well on narrow pots. And even better, of course, on wide ones.

To me, good alcohol stoves require 15 ml slx type fuel to boil 2 cups, and are easy to light. Since this is now not hard to find, I don't really understand why the cat can stoves still are around and talked about beyond how easy they are to make.

The original question is a false dichotomy, heavy stoves vs cat can stoves, heavy being canister types I assume since they are always heavier when you consider days of trip/weight carried than a decent alcohol setup, but most alcohol stoves are A: very light, and B: not cat can stoves, the CHS only weighs a few grams, the stand weighs between 8 and 12 grams depending on what materials you use.

I have noted that there are some people who use the worst possible, least efficient, alcohol stove setup then say alcohol isn't good, then go to the best possible and most expensive canister setup, then will post that as if they are comparing two equivalent things, best to best, hard to really understand that way of thinking but it is fairly common. Alcohol requires a well fitted screen, but canister stoves should have a screen to from what I gather so I don't see a difference there.

But I have also noted the current BPL fad is to use canister stoves, or at least to talk about them, these things come and go like all fashions.

CJ,

Not everybody runs out snd spends $100÷ on a cone setup etc.

Andrew Skurka, who for some inane reason insists on calling the Supercat a "Fancee feast" ,still uses the design on most of his 3 season trips .

I still like it and have worked with the Supercat enough to know that if you use a good basic setup, floor ,windscreen and proper sized pot, efficiency is as good as any other side burning stove.

I use about 2/3 of an ounce per boil (18 to 20ml) in about 6 minutes.

I have never found stability to be a problem.

supercat jim wood

I think it is called the fancy feast to distinguish it from another design that also used cat food cans, but it was completely different, also popular around that time (early 2000s), that one was one can inside another can.

Skurka just wanted to avoid giving the actual designer of the stove credit and had the nerve to call it the skurka stove or whatever he called it, self promotion is I guess an occupation for some. I stopped paying attention to him once I noted this pattern so can’t say more.

"Skurka just wanted to avoid giving the actual designer of the stove credit and had the nerve to call it the skurka stove or whatever he called it, self promotion is I guess an occupation for some. I stopped paying attention to him once I noted this pattern so can't say more."

Don't know what your beef is with Andrew, but he never called this a "Skurka Stove". In fact the very first sentence of his write-up on it mentions that he got it from someone else.
http://andrewskurka.com/2011/how-to-make-a-fancy-feast-alcohol-stove/

I suppose he didn't know who originated the stove. He did popularize it.

I've used this and the Roy Robinson cat stove as well. I prefer the FF stove because it's simpler, lighter and all components fit inside my 0.9L pot, which the RR stove doesn't. I find no difference in the amount of fuel needed to boil water with these two designs, though the FF may be slightly slower. The FF is definitely less stable.

I wouldn't call it a beef, I just don't like that type of person. I didn't like Lance Armstrong, long before he was popped for the doping everyone inside the sport knew he was doing, either, for the same reasons, same type of person. And before Lance was finally brought down, nobody here would have objected to that comparison, I'm sure.

Wasn't, and isn't, hard to find the maker of the supercat, his web site is where all the other places got the information from in the first place, so I wouldn't say skurka popularized it, it was already popular, that's an example of skurka's self promoting abilities by the way, you think he popularized something that was already a standard item and popular before he talked about it, so you link his name to it in your mind, that's how self promotion works, it's why you do it, and it's why I dislike it, and it's why I point it out here. I've watched enough of his video presentations to see that's his thing, it's not exactly subtle, even if people here like him for whatever reason.

It's a jim wood stove, always has been, the supercat version. He, not skurka, popularized it, I believe he designed it, and various other odd and maybe not super practical other ideas, he had a bit of a community around that, he made his website on it ages ago, that was the source for all the stuff, just give credit to the guy who actually did the work. The reason Skurka heard about it was because it was popular, and easy to make, a standard thing I believe on the PCT / AT at the time.

I was, however, impressed when skurka actually got people to reference this stove with his name, I thought that was well done on his part, if you want to make a living off your name, you have to have that instinct.

Peter,

Yes,Andrew Skurka never called it a "Skurka stove" BUT he NEVER gave credit to its origional designer, Jim Wood- either. He has never done that in print OR on his 2009 Youtube video. Not since then, either.

You might also note, that the name " FANCEE FEAST" was in use for another DIY and Commercial stove design by Zelph in 2007.
So ,either Andy was blindly ignorant of the name or just chose to call it what he wished.

One may think " who cares,its just a catfoid can stove".

In 2006 when Andrew Skurka was given that stove he was just a 20 something kid who had done a few long thru hikes. Now , he is a lecturer,instructor and book author. He has a responsibilty to get nomenclature correct. Words mean things. Any writer or teacher who mislabels gear nomenclature or does not fully credit sources is just unprofessional.It also confuses new users.

To me, its an issue of a stunning lack of gratitude. Jim Woods GAVE that design to the.backpacking community. It lhas REAL VALUE. Skurka hinself values it enough he still uses the design free of charge. If MSR or Vargo had designed that stove , had it made in China out of Titanium and then Sold ut for $30 a pop ,folks would have bought a LOT of them.
I bet if GOLITE had marketed that stove, Skurka would have got the name correct.;)

As a hiker/athelete, I respect Skurka. As an author, not so much. Everbody makes mistakes. The problem is, Skurka has made.this one very visible..Its 2015 -about time he got on the same page as the rest of the alcohol stove using world and called the Supercat by its proper name.

I'm sure Dan Y. would be glad to email him a pic of the REAL Fancee Feast stove.

Maybe Skurka can put that in his new book, or better yet ,on his blog..;)

Tempest in a cat food can!

It will always be a Jim Wood stove to me.

But if you want to be mad at Skurka about something, be pissed at him for coming out with the SHR route maps and profiting off them. Roper made the route and intentionally only discussed it in text, not wanting to make it TOO easy for folks (i.e. you have to do a little work for entry). Skurka went against the intention of the route-creator, made maps and got paid. That's what he does.

p.s. Good timing for this thread. I just cleaned out my camping gear, and recycled a few Jim Woods and other fitted can stoves. Kept a big White Box Stove just for grins.

Like others, I found that it wasn't the best option… Sure, it was super cheap and super easy to make, but it is far from perfect… I have about 4 or 5 of them that I have tinkered with, and used with different set-ups, and it just wasn't what I had wanted. It pretty much requires a larger diameter pot, which knocked a bunch of my pots out of the running from the get go, although, even with my larger diameter Evernew pots, it wasn't anything close to my other set-ups. Others that I know that use(d) them also had the same feelings and eventually went with other set-ups.

Like others, I found that it wasn't the best option…

+1

I tested it with holes punched exactly as instructed with a few different pots, the widest being a Toaks 1.35L, and found that it clearly was not the most fuel-efficient alky stove. I did 2 or 3 more versions with larger and smaller holes and different spacing and could not get any improvement. (My dog enjoyed the cat food.) The 12-10 and Starlyte stoves are definitely better, and for my really lightweight summer kit I settled upon the Starlyte with the little pot support. Brings a liter of water to a full boil with about 25ml of alcohol, which can't be said of the cat can stove.

Just whatever you do, don't go too far like I did.

I had made cat food can stoves, and then I wanted to go deeper into ultralightweight stoves. I made a stove out of about three pieces of aluminum tealight candle cups. The alcohol burner weighed only 2 grams, but the separate pot support weighed another 2 grams. The thing was so underpowered that it took two burns of alcohol to boil water.

–B.G.–

"The thing was so underpowered that it took two burns of alcohol to boil water."

I like that B.G. doesn't specify how much water.

Tea lights are good for holding Esbit tabs in a pinch.

I discovered fairly early on that I just don't love stoves, any stoves; I've gone stoveless for the majority of my 3-season trips, short and long. I think people who really love their alkies are those who've fiddled with them and refined them enough to get an efficient burn. My efforts with cat can stoves (and there weren't many) always resulted in really poor efficiency, even following instructions to the letter.

When I do bring a stove, it usually involves hiking with a group of kids/teens, in which case it is really nice to have something user-friendly that doesn't involve a lot of technique, and with less risk of spilling flammable liquids on the ground. Canister stoves are perfect for that.

If I had to pick a stove to have a crush on it would be a ti-tri caldera; there's just something very romantic about cooking dinner over a twig fire.

I have had success using a 6-hour tealight candle cup, in bringing 10 oz. of water to boil on a single "load" of alcohol (SLX). I think most tealight candles are 4-hour, and don't hold enough fuel. I found the 6-hour candles at World Market.

One of the keys to this was inserting a coil of very thin wire into the fuel cup to act as a feedback mechanism to heat the fuel. I have the specs and boil times at home in a notebook.

This is a novelty setup that I would never take into the field without some sort of backup:

– Burner: 6-hour tealight candle cup with "supercharger" wire coil: 2 g
– Pot: 12-oz. Heineken keg can, w/lid (cut bottom 1/2" of Coke can): 18 g
– Conical alu windscreen for above setup (salvaged from lasagna pan): 9 g
– Pot supports — Ti tent pegs (accounted for in shelter weight): 0 g
– Fuel bottle (8-oz. plastic water bottle): 12 g

Total: 41 g / 1.4 oz.

For my purposes 10 oz. is enough to prepare a single-serving meal.

"I like that B.G. doesn't specify how much water."

My 2-gram alcohol burner was able to boil some water. I'm sure that it was at least one 8-ounce cup, but I doubt that it was more. The 2-gram pot support would have been crushed if it had been more.

–B.G.–